to support our nation in this vital area. with that i will stop and will open up for your questions. >> director, thank you very much. as you know we are anxious awaiting on the senate to pass the cyber legislation so that we can get to a conference. we were hopeful they would get done before we broke for august. they haven't. now looks like from recent reading looks like we are looking out into october. i want to get all of you a broad question and give you plenty of time to answer it, but being that were after in the public for everyone to see, i think it's a great time to not only discuss what each of your agencies do, and also talk about maybe the number one, two, and three, maybe not in any particular order, particular to your agency what you see as the greatest threats, dick is concerned, and issues that you all are working on in each of your individual agencies.

we will start with you, director clapper. >> well, sir, chairman, my standpoint, obviously i'm trying to overwatch the entire enterprise of u.s. intelligence. and as i've said every year that i testified now for five years in this job come and my 50 plus years in the intelligence business i don't recall a time when we have been beset by a greater variety of challenges and crises around the world, both regionally and functionally. and so the challenge for me is as likely to the community is attending to, addressing this wide diversity of threats. in the face of, and i have to bring this up, very uncertain budgeting environment, now

approaching our fourth or fifth year of uncertainty about the size and shape of our budget, which poses challenges for us programmatically, certainly with respect to sysems acquisition, and the uncertainty it creates in the work force. so with that i will stop there with a journal over you and i will turn first to john brennan. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman and members of the committed for the opportunity to talk to today about this are important issue issue. three top priorities for me, thinking of cyber. one is sent cia has responsibility to make sure we have a good grasp of what the plans come intentions and capabilities on upper adversaries around the world, making sure we have the insights and intelligence that will give us better sense of what may be coming at us. that's part of our mission, but given this is a very dynamic environment in terms of what

that there is tools and capabilities that various actors have, we need to make sure we're on the top of our game in order to make sure we inform others. want to make sure our systems are going to be secure as they can be so that we can fulfill our responsibility to share information as many do, make sure that people are going to be able to operate and act on information we are able to get both inside and outside, we can do this securely and reliably. so we have initiated a number of actions within the agencies to make sure that in light of some recent experiences that we are in some respects doubling down on the security in that regard and i rely very heavily on my colleagues here on that front. and then third, since cia is supposed to operating security and covertly globally, we need to make sure that we have a full appreciation of what the digital domain cyber environment has in terms of both challenges and opportunities which is one of

the reasons why we didn't cia has set up for the first time the figures a new directorate on digital innovation so we are able to bring together the expertise and develop the capabilities that we need in order to carry out our missions so that we know what we are dealing with when we try to fulfill our responsibilities around the world and in increasingly digitized environment and that there is digital dust that we all pick up everything in our lives. we need to be mindful of how that is going to impact our intelligence activities and operations. >> mike? >> from an nsa perspective for us in terms of what our mission and responsibility are, we use our -- what cyber actors, nation-states, groups, individuals are doing in the cyber at me with a view towards ensuring that with insights to their efforts against the united states, our allies in their interest. also importantly from nsa perspective, we are responsible for developing the cryptographic

standard for all classic systems within the department of defense. we apply our technical capabilities parted with others within the dod to generate the technical standards to help ensure the security of all of our classified systems within the department and then we apply our information assurance expertise more broadly partnering with the fbi and dhs, both to support more broadly within the federal government and also within the private sector. so those are our roles. in terms of what concerns me, no one is ensuring the defense of our own networks, execute the operation in the security. also ensuring, helping to partner with others to ensure the defense of the dod and more broadly the dot gov domains. whawhen i look at it from the perspective i would argue three things really as i focused in the future, efforts against u.s. infrastructure, second printing is only going to see a shift in

the trend not just outright theft of information but are goinwegoing to start is he a fon manipulation or changing of data when someone is able to gain access to the system so start to question the validity of what we all are particularly looking at. and then finally into counterterrorism arena to restart the secrets start to view the web as a weapon system and not just as wicked as ends ideology, recruit, raise money to decide what to pic to get to another level and quickly already see very open and public conversations about that now. >> director comey. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for having me here today. the fbi's mission is in the united states to detect and respond to all the threats that come at us through the internet come through cyberspace which is increasing every threat we are responsible for whether counterterrorism, counterintelligence or all the many criminal threats would focus on. at the top of our stack when it comes to some of the

nation-state actors. both intelligence activities in the united states and defense activities in the united states to steal our in addition, ideas, energy. and respond to that my primary concern for making sure we have the folks, we have the equipment they need and we have the deployment that make sense to respond to that threat. >> general stewart. >> ntia our primary responsibility is to understand the military capabilities of our attaché. so in this space we are particularly interested in how the adversary uses this environment to permit the control forces, conduct isr so that we can counter its capabilities in this space. we are focused not just in the nonkinetic capabilities that we could bring against adversaries, but also the kinetics. we look at this from a broad spectrum is how we drop bombs

and distort or defeat of that capability on how we can be disruptive in that capability. we provide that to all source analysis based on products and support that we get from our partners here at this table. to concerns for us, how will we defend our networks. we spent a good bit of time looking at the construct of our architecture so we can defend not just the network but the data within the network. in the second area of concern is whether or not i have enough resources and expertise to do the first part of our charge in this space, understand our adversary capabilities. that's in theory we've got to do some additional investment, and some resources around, give givo details of the things we've got to look at the threat landscape. this is never i think we need to do some additional investment. >> i think you all for being here. at this time i will yield to the ranking member for purpose of question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentlemen.

i have two questions, one did with the encryption issue and the other dealing with our response to cyber attacks and intrusions. on the encryption issue, there's several issues. there's a technological question of can we or can silicon valley design a technological solution. there is a desirability question, even if they could, is it desirable? do we gain more from having encrypted and indications that mean from cyber hacking family lose in law enforcement and transcends ability to the content implementations? was a desirability we could achieve technologically. vendors the economic argument. these countries have to compete overseas. to our others offering an encrypted platform that people migrate to. so what do we achieve apart from harming our economic interests by insisting on a key?

so i wonder if you could address those arguments that we hear from industry about, how do you evaluate it? on a technological issue, 20 years ago the national academy of sciences did an analysis of related encryption issue and the clipper chip and came up with a neutral and thoughtful analysis. would it be worthwhile to have them take a look at this question? is there somewhere we can go are an objective answer to the technological question that is held distinct from the economic interests at stake? is a worthwhile pursuing that kind of a neutral analysis? so i'd be interested in your comments are the technological feasibility, desirability, and economic implications of the encryption debate. and then on the cyber front, it

seems to me that there are two very different kinds of cyber issues we are confronting. you are the cyber attacks. well, actually i guess three. they're cyber attacks like sony, minty damage, cyber threats to our infrastructure would be in that category. the our cyber theft so economic espionage for the purpose of benefiting form corporations, and then there are poor intelligence gathering efforts and it seems to me for many of our adversaries in this realm like the chinese there's an advanced to blink the distinctions between these. because if they compose a distinction between economic theft and foreign intelligence gathering, and they can justify anything to do. seems to me its art in our interest to draw clear lines between foreign intelligence gathering and economic theft.

and yet when is the discussion, sometimes involving opm and sometimes involving other things, i hear us in the ic blurring those lines. i wish you could address that. shouldn't we make clear what the rules of the road are, but we don't engage in economic espionage and we want to insist that others also don't engage in that kind of theft? and think about whether the are any rules of the road in terms of foreign intelligence gathering but keep those questions distinct it if you could comment on those two issues. >> i think i will turn for those two questions to two of our panel, and i'll start with director comey, and then admiral rogers. >> out offer reaction on the encryption question. thank you mr. should. personable and very much appreciate the feedback from the companies we've been trying to engage in dialogue with companies because this is not a problem that will be solved by the government alone. is going to require industry,

academia, associations of all kinds in government. i hope we can start from a place for all agree there's a problem and that we should the same values around that problem. whenever people talk about the crypto wars, it was because wars are fought between people with different values. we all care about safety and security on the internet, and i'm a big strong of -- i'm a big fan of strong encryption to the problem we have is those our intention. a whole lot of the work in counterterrorism and criminal work and counterintelligence work, give which are about the same things, i hope we can agree with to come together to try to solve the problem. i've heard from a lot of folks that it's too hard to my reaction to that is, really? how they really tried? have we really try to another that industry today i see companies, major internet service providers who are able to comply with court orders because a strongly encrypted in transit and they decrypt when it crosses their networks so they

can reader e-mails so they can send us as. i've never heard anybody say those companies are fundamentally insecure. i don't think we really tried to i also don't think there is an it to the solution to i would imagine providing many solutions depend on whether an enormous company in this business or a tiny company in that business. i think we haven't given it a shot it deserves which is why i welcome the dialogue. we are having some very healthy discussions. >> and with respect to the second part of your question, i mean, i think you have correctly characterized there is no one size fits all of to describe the spectrum of activity that we see out there. that's one reason why you see response to different events are not always the same. we try to look at each event in its own context. sony click for example, in the first category as you suggested an offensive act designed to create damage versus much activity we see, which is clearly designed nation-states

attempted to gain economic advantage, whether that's for competitive purposes are attempting to steal insights that they can in turn generate and use themselves to develop capabilities that are of interest to them. defensive information. i think it's one reason why today we've tried to be somewhat nuanced if you will and how we as a government have responded to i think it also goes to the comments in some of your opening statements about the long-term end state i think what you get to hear is this idea of acceptable norms of behavior and what's within reason and what is not within reason. we could understand nation-states use the spectrum of capabilities they have to attempt to generate insights in the world around them. but that does not mean that the use of cyber for many deluded destructive purposes is acceptable but that doesn't mean the use of cyber for the extraction of massive amounts of personally identifiable information is acceptable. we will have to work her way

through how do we develop that in a much more refined way than we have today. >> i have to say that, of course, many of these issues that you raise are significant and also policy issues. not really the realm of the group of people sitting here. we can try to speak to them but i do feel compelled to make that point. and on your concern about conflating or not distinguishing between cyber threats for economic purposes or for foreign intelligence, you're quite right. it's not that we don't make that distinction, but the adversaries, notably the chinese can do not. they don't see a difference at all in the ultimate purpose for which they extract data from us. so i just want to, you know, kind of make that distinction.

i also, and this is a personal view with respect to that, which is conducted for espionage purposes, i just would caution that we think in the old song about people living in glass houses. we should think before we throw rocks. so these are very, as you correctly and the properly allude, very complex policy issues. >> if i could just drill down once more on both, for very narrowly, on the latter issue, are there any rules in the road when it comes to foreign intelligence gathering? or is it futile to keep in development because the condition decides it's in the nation should interest they will do what they will do? or should we try to establish some rules for foreign intelligence gathering?

on the first point, director comey, if you could just get your thoughts on what you make of the economic arguments that other companies are going to do this. there's an advantage to having help american companies in this area, ultimate economic and national security point of view. aren't we at risk of losing that's because jim, go ahead. >> i think it's a reasonable concern. i have two reactions to it. first, i think it's incumbent upon us as a country to decide how do we want to govern ourselves and our affairs. what's the right thing for america. there's lots of costs that need to come check you cannot pollute the weapon. other countries don't which is a disadvantage to our companies. we decided we wanted is certainly. i think we ought to start better look i'm not blind to the fact that to compete in a nation workplace with other countries that share our values suck up to matching important part of this

important part of this will be an international set of don't what country they care about the same things, safety on it and public safety come together and establish this is how we will act. i hear from alice all done the french want the same thing, the germans, the british. i think it is something that could be done. >> just comment on the rules of the road issue, i think it's fair to say in his face has more rules governing the conduct of foreign intelligence than any other nation on the planet. example five pba. which governs, through the conduct of signal intelligence

in this country and to some extent extends privacy protections at foreign citizen. i don't believe any other country does that. so we do have an elaborate set of governance, tenants that influence the conduct of intelligence in general and signal intelligence specifically. those seeking other partners that would simply a line with us. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> so if i may, tripod, i think you wanted to add. >> the only other comment i would make is in many other areas we've been able overtime to develop a set of norms about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. i think overtime will do the same thing in this environment but we could i not there yet and i would just reinforce the dni's comment about the specific things that i find foreign

intelligence organizations are doing in the cyber domain that quite frankly are illegal for us and we cannot do. it's a very different set of rules out there in many ways between us and activities i see others engage in. >> gentleman yields back. yield five minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland. >> thank you, chairman. we passed a good cyber bill i think out of house that allowed businesses to share information without the liability question. and as adam mentioned that, junior come we hear about attacks and to hear about intrusions. windows boeing defense become offense? north if some of these companies have picked out a marker, we have determined where it is coming from. to be continually play defense

with that or try to come up with a better defense, or if some action that we might take going to be considered offensive to whether it's a nation-state or another company or whatever? where is that line at? >> so for us particularly in the do you decide, i'm pretty comfortable that we've got a fairly well understood characterization of what is defensive in nature in terms of actions and response. the bigger challenge in some ways is there is still uncertainty about how would you characterize what is offensive and what is authorized. that post and ultimately to a policy decision. antedate we attended to do that on a case-by-case basis. entrance other fundamental premise, i think importantly in a comment i sort and make when i part of the discussions, a

purely reactive sense of the strategy is the ultimate i think going to change the dynamic where we are now at the dynamic we find ourselves in now i don't think it's acceptable to anyone. >> well, when you say it's a policy issue, are we talking about a policy issue that comes out of the white house? >> so the application of cyber in the offensive what is an application of force. the application of force under the law of armed conflict in the broader policy construct that we used as nation, as nations, once you move beyond self-defense, is a decision that is made at a broad policy level. it's not something i, for example, as the director or the commander of u.s. on the commit is unilaterally decide. is not the framework. not unique to the cyber world. it's the same fundamental construct for use with application of force into

kinetic world within the department of defense a more broadly in other areas. >> so how is it sifted out? who makes that determination? >> depends on a case-by-case basis, but clearly the secretary of defense is granted some authority. depression retain some authority of his love and that's all part of the process we work through and deal with each individual event on the merits of its own. >> you understand that when the public hears the word attack, it gives off a little different meaning than if we say intrusion. >> right, which is one reason i think you also raise an important point. terminology and lexicon is very important in this space. many times i wanted people throughout a tack, active or. at tyco, that's not necessarily in every case how i would characterize the activity that i see. >> there's a good distinction to

make it into shooting the opm bridge has a case of point. although it's been characterized by some loosely as an attack on it really wasn't since it was entirely passive. didn't result in destruction or any of those kinds of effects of the distinction you point out, and thank you for doing that, is quite important. as admiral rogers says, the lexicon, the terminology is crucial. >> if the company, or they discover that they are being attacked by a certain entity, or whatever, and they use a means to stop that attack, in other words, they can figure out how to stop that attack, do they do you, can they do that offensively, i guess? and what would differentiate between an offensive move and a defensive move? >> first of all, there's a clear

line into united states. it would be a crime for any private actor to engage in an offensive cyber operation, to penetrate without permission the computer system of another. that's a statute that this congress has passed. so that's a clear line. it makes good sense to those of us in the intelligence community that we don't want self-help because of the nature of the cyberspace is that there are unforeseen consequences that could be dramatic and unforese unforeseen. >> i think, getting back to the definition, i think that's what we're looking for is the definition of what is offensive and what defensive. but thank you very much. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from alabama, ms. desoer is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. want to thank all of you for your service, called important work you're doing in your various agencies. i wanted to drill deeper into

the question that congressman westmoreland raised. director clapper, you suggested that the opm information that was stolen was in use for any nefarious activities to our knowledge right now. wanted to know what you thought about how the information that was stolen from opm or from anthem is being used by these cyber actors. >> what we do is speculate how it could be used. and again the distinction i was just making with congressman westmoreland had to do with the terminology of saying that the opm breach was an attack it and i don't, again getting back to the definition, we wouldn't characterize it that way. what's of great concern with respect to the opm breach, which i spoke to breathe and my opening statement had to do with potential uses of the data. of course, we are looking, thus

far we haven't seen any evidence of their usage of the data. certainly we are going to be looking for it but it's of great concern to the employees who are potential affected as well as the families and coworkers in terms of how it could be used in a very damaging way. not only institutionally in terms of, particularly for intelligence people, but in general how this could be used to affect financial damage, for example,. >> how does the grace agencies work in a coordinated effort with respect to cyber attacks? can you talk a little bit about how the biggest are you talk about the intelligence agencies? >> yes. >> we are very, very mindful of that obviously. this is the case with how we need to set the highest standards as an example. so i note in my own place, i have a very intensive effort on securing and ensuring that our

networks, and my own headquarters our secure. and i know my colleagues are doing this thing. let me as admiral rogers to comment spam and i think james comey may have a perspective as well. i think first question is, which is a domain which is receiving this intrusion? is a within the dot mil, dot gov, private sector? let's -- >> isn't it a coordinated effort? >> it is. >> it may start in one particular agency which has jurisdictions but i would assume it's coordinate across all of our systems. >> my point is that coordination, who has a lead, the primacy come if there is by the entity that has been penetrated where it is, in the government, outside the cover. if we is a backup -- if we use the -- ordination, each department responsible for protection of their own system,

they just come over responsibility. so if you like in the opm scenario, for example, you saw opm as they realized, begin to realize what had happened, i realized this is beyond the capacity. they turn to dhs, dhs turn to the fbi, nsa to provide technical support. we do that continually. we have done that particularly between nsa and the fbi within the government domain, increasingly we find ourselves when requested attempting to support high-end intrusions into private sector, sony is an example. >> is there anything that can be done to enhance that cooperation coordination speak with there's always more. as i talk to my teammates, speed is critical here. focus, leadership, buy-in, the ability to set up mechanisms to more rapidly flow information

back and forth with each other, the more, the ability to put expertise more quickly on the problem set. we continually get better but for me at least part of it is -- >> one area of course we could improve is in the government to private sector relationship with that's why the legislation is so important. let me ask director comey as will it be as common spent i agree with what admiral rogers said. we've made dramatic strides in the last five years. i think of us, this is probably a homely metaphor. we're like a fire station. when the bell rings we send all the trucks that would ask do they need a hook and ladder trucks to the rescue truck? we send them all that means we sent nsa, fbi, dhs. with you got what's needed at the same to these people who called 911. that has gotten better. our primary way of sharing information is busy in ci jdf which i hope you've had a chance to this. we all sit together and in human terms and electronically we

share the information about what we need to respond to this particular fire. >> i wanted to commend director brennan on your tackling the persistent problem of lack of diversity in the ic. i know you commission a report, and i just wanted to commend you on seem to need and look forward to working with all agencies represented in making sure that we address our lack of diversity in the intelligence community. >> the gentlelady yelled back. >> the government from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. somebody said that iran does not have the technical capability that are russian or a china would have is it safe to assume, and i use that word assume in quotes, that russia would give some other capabilities to iran to use it in the cyberworld?

>> that might be best left to a closed discussion. >> somebody talked about attribution also. how do we distinguish between a state sponsored hack or a tag and an individual? >> the way we do in almost any other circumstance. we tried to see what facts we have to connect the individual at the keyboard to a particular government. sometimes it's a direct evidence, sometimes it's circumstantial, sometimes it's the tools used to we put together those accessing what judgment can we make. there's always a human being at the keeper. that human being to a particular state actor. >> the only other comment i would make is then we'll compare the activity that we've observed with that which what we've observed historically overtime looking for similarities. >> are most of the attacks designed to glean information or

to disrupt? >> well again, the terminology attack versus gleaning information, and that this point, it's either been, you know, disruption of a website, for example, but more commonly just purloining information as indicated in my opening statement though, i believe the next push on the envelope here is going to be the manipulation or deletion of david which will compromise its integrity. >> going back to the russia iran issue, and i know going back to russia and iran, i know there's some issues that we can talk about here, but russia said at a cyber command. how about china? >> to the best of my knowledge,

the chinese have not yet gone to the configuration like the russians appeared to have with establishing a cybercom somewhat analogous to admiral rogers command. but that's not to say that the chinese, as you know, very capable structure and apparatus in their current poa staff structure. >> yield back, mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back to mr. quigley is recognized for five and. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for being you and thank you for your service to i guess we are most often of high profile hacks, cyberattacks on the u.s. government and major corporations. but as you know the majority of businesses in the ic are small business. we have thousands of very small local governments.

they still contain in their computers extraordinarily sensitive client information or public information. yet as we can imagine they often lack the sophistication, the capabilities, the expertise and knowledge, the resources to meet this challenge. what anything we can to reach out to those entities and try to help them meet this challenge of? >> it is absolutely the concern of every business in the united states from the traditional mom and pop up to medium-size to large. and so we have with the fbi is doing about it as we recognize that's a threat to everybody because our whole lives are connected to the internet. so in every community in this country we have something called info cards which is designed to offer vehicle for those folks to learn from us best practices and warnings and indicators and for the deal to share information is useful to other small businesses into the fbi sought to encourage small business folks, contact

your local fbi office. we are in every community, over 500 officers, join in to guard it will make you smart and open a process of major government smarter. >> i would just add as well the responsibility come on because the number of his inherited it is department of homeland security which does have responsible for engaging state and local tribal and private sector segment. spent and i appreciate that, but the lack of resources. we hear so often that it is becoming cheaper and easier to hack and more expensive and difficult to defend. is there some other way besides this that we should begin to look at in terms of trying to balance the field between the resources a community bank has versus a major national bank? >> want to do things that we need to continue to do better as

a federal government is equipped our state and local partners to investigate crimes that are digital in nature but that's something that sheriffs and chiefs are hungry for. the fbi and secret service are pushing lots of tiny, pushing online so people from the desk in a police station become a certified cyber investigator. the reason that matter so much is this never going to be in a federal agents to answer the call of tens and tens of thousands of small businesses who need help. we've got to equip our local artists able to offer that assistance. >> thank you so much, and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. conaway. >> thanks chairman. can you tell if information that's been provost in from somewhere else is actually being sold in that arena?

>> the dark web is the portion of the internet that is not touched by in the journal search engines. so you won't find it through google or yahoo! or being or anything like that. you have to go looking for it. so it requires specialized knowledge and often operate the required specialist software because it is unreachable and it is hidden, sort of a below the water line. is attractive to people who want to avoid any kind of scrutiny so very attractive to criminals of all sorts. >> so have you seen it actually being used to sell information that's been stolen also speak with you. we took down a forum in the dark web data was being used to trade information, personally identifiable information and skills. the packers have done is hacking has become so they just did is become specialized so now what does all the different pieces

that necessary to still record and cash but it is almost places in the dark web that they need each other and us and to specialize in and talk to some who specializes in stealing and some else is a specialty in hiding things on a particular server can sell the services there. so it is a world full of promotes which is one investors for the fbi and our partners spent a lot of time there. >> do you have the right tools, i mean come as any of that activity the chevy cobalt that is not criminal yet, are the areas we need to improve what you can do? >> i think by and large we have the tools, what we're trying to do this with their international, that's the key, because it just find the bad guys from the united states doesn't help us at the bad guys are all about the world. the operation i just mentioned in fall 20 country liking these guys. we send a message you think you're hiding from us but you were not. the dark web is not a safe place

to conduct the activity. we have the tools to get into if i did what we are getting better this building those international relations. >> they have the requisite authorities to do what you? >> i believe so, yes. >> can you assure us what it is a bridge or an attack at opm that at this stage you have reversed engineered well enough to try to put in place appropriate protections elsewhere? >> i don't think that's something i'm best to speak about. >> and for nsa we provided opm with making specific recommendations on how we could suggest changes of the network structure with a help to forestall future activity. dhs has recommended improvements to i no opm is working their way through that and has a plan for how they're going to implement the steps they believe are necessary to ensure that they don't see a repeat. >> it's not your lame, but they can't be the only ones who had the problem.

those recommendations being shared beyond just opm? >> yes. portable we try to do annually goes to representatives who will support them every time we find ourselves with a major incident we try to ensure the insights we generate our shared more broadly with our private sector partners. we are the first to acknowledge is likely that others will attempt to replicate the same kind of ttp's as we would say, the same techniques they are using against we tried to make sure we share information broadly. >> general clapper, is there authority anywhere for someone to require all these government agencies, opm, others to government the recommendations to set standards and then hold agency executives, secretaries of the various cabinet folks? is there somebody who can say he had to do this by a certain period of time to? >> i can't quote you chapter and

verse dignity of the jerk cam, but i think just from the simple standpoint of institution responsibility -- >> i note -- >> the network. >> they all work for the president but you would expect him to call them and make sure it happens. is there someone in the hierarchy of folks who were close enough to the president that can be required to happen. >> mike, can you help me with that? >> in the aftermath of opm, more broadly across the federal government, the white house set up a task force that is specific edessa a series of concrete steps that were required to be executed. we had finished it all within a 90 day time frame, every department across the company. as the deny indicated, i always try to remind people in the end, all of accountability and leadership. but you've got 1000 judges you

trying to deal with as a leader, trying to ensure you're sending a strong message to your organization about what your expectations are and what's acceptable and what's not and fundamental labs and you're going to protect information our citizens have shared with us from the government. >> i think you want to point to an institution in the government that has the responsibility for, yo,you know, governmentwide is probably the office of management and budget. and, of course, appropriately they have the power of the pur purse. >> thank you, gentlemen. yield back. >> the gentleman from california. >> i want to thank the panelists and the ic for your work this summer. we took down some planned isil attacks in america is cooperation between and the fbi made some very helpful arrests and that highlights i think, we have to be perfect.

they pull off one attack and it hurts people. it caused panic. so thank you for doing the. i want to follow on what mr. conaway was saying. my question is for director comey. as a former prosecutor i appreciate how hard it is to go after what we would've kind of call of paper case or a computer case. it takes a lot of work. i had to get his fingertips are on the keyboard causing these attacks but it's a difficult especially when they are drawn across the globe. but do you think we could do a better job of making sure we hold these people responsible, showed into the world and deter more attacks? right now it seems we are almost entirely on the defensive posture and i think you hinted a lot of this is because of international challenges. we just struck an agreement with iran that info china and russia and countries we don't normally agree with and work with.

do you foresee an opportunity for a compact with the nation's to go after somebody cybercriminals? cyber espionage i think is different than cybercriminals, that would put this issue to do your job and? >> i.t. the bad guys for the use of the internet have shrunk the world. it may places that are hundreds of thousands of miles apart, next-door neighbors on the internet. so our strategy, the fbi's strategy is to shrink the world back into his. for deploy fbi cyber agents around the world, and also equipped our partners around the world with technology and training and people so they can help us. you're exactly right. that bad guys think it's a freebie that there into pajamas and a keyboard path around the world. they can sue anything in america. we are going to make him look over their shoulder. it again america, an fbi agent but if you're halfway around the world and agent. they can always be better.

>> with respect to what ranking membership was talking earlier on the end to end encryption and the challenges of their, i would hate if we didn't do everything we could to prevent the next attack and know where it's going to come from. to challenge you have laid out quite articulately over the past year about going dark, as you mentioned, it has attention with some of the security and privacy values that we also have. how do you see us reconciling that? you mentioned making sure that we work with industry. it's not just policy but back at home in the bay area, it sometimes seems like we've forgotten about september 11, and privacy is a term out concern. how can we reconcile the two as lawmakers and also with industry

so that we don't look back and see what could have prevented an attack but we were dark? >> i think from the government side, i'll responsible is to talk to folks and explain to them we are not any expert the fbi is not an ending force imposed upon the american people. we work for the american people. we work with the tools they give us through congress. our job is to say welcome our tools are being eroded and we're not making it up. what is to people i think in the iso- threat to see that we are not making it up. there really is a conflict between two things will care about deeply. ever going to protect people got forgot how to resolve it. but also not be edited to thank the answers from the government. you should not look to the government for innovation. we can do a lot of great things by technological innovation is not our thing. we all love this great country of ours. went to come together to try to solve the. i really believe that given us the shot that it deserves and

were going to continue talking about it to try and demystified it and blow away this nonsense that we are at war with each other. this shouldn't be then and. we should all care about the same things and figure out how to solve it. >> if we were in a posture where if american companies or if most of the end to end encryption being used by the bad guys ended up being overseas or companies that were overseas, what is the plan to make sure we can still protect communications that would threaten american? >> how we would reach -- infrastructure completely overseas? we would have to do with our foreign partners. every country that cares about the rule of law thinks about this and assembly to all of us after reconcile those values the way to do it as international committee. i think there's a reason that we should be out we want to govern ourselves. we also just want to chase the problem to some place where we

can't get to its we got to figure out peace and peace at work with our international partners as a community of nations to figure out how to address this. >> thank you all for the work you do. >> gentleman yield back. ms. ros-lehtinen of florida. >> this morning the treasury department targeted for key hamas leaders as financial facilitators further terrorist acts and sanctions and one was athletic and one was a palestinian, one egyptian, one jordanian, as well as a front company that refused to transfer all of these dollars. they were providing incredible financial support to individual terrorists as well as the groups they belong to. this highlights the international scope of fundraising by these terrorist enterprise, and the directing of military operations, the

facilitating of the transfer of funds, all done within the cyber domain. were enough or that they would not be able to move this money around and planned these attacks. we are talking tens of millions of dollars that were moved from iran to saudi arabia, a lot of money laundering. how confident are you in your individual agencies and working together that you have the necessary resources to continue chick tract these terrorist activities that would be able to continue to sanction these individuals that keep popping up as soon as we put these four guys down, and put them out of business, for more will pop up that we are able to track them thanks to the technology that we have. so how confident are you that we can continue this sort of like and the coast guard in my congressional district, which is dedicate faster boats than the drugrunners who are moving their drug shipment. >> i think we have, thanks for

the question your i think we have a pretty good understanding of the financial mechanisms that are used. we could always do better and we could always use more resources but we certainly have put focus on the whole issue of threat finances. that's a whole new realm of intelligence that has evolved over the last decade or so. i have a national intelligence manager for threat finance was also the chief intelligence officer of the department of treasury. so we have very good linkage i think across the community bringing to bear all the resources of the community, human, et cetera, to focus on this but it is a constant challenge because as i think you have complied in bringing this up, this is the lifeblood of international terrorist activity. john, do you have a common? >> i think we certainly have the

tools. we're going to make sure we utilize all of our various intelligence capabilities. but as jim mentioned, we have ppd 20 and/or issues related to access to metadata, bulk collection to the types of things that i think it gets to this issue about what do we do for security purposes but what also might impact on privacy civil liberties issues. so the treasury department make sure they have is sufficient basis to designate these individuals and i think as jim said we are working very closely with. >> arveson things we can do in changing any laws that would allow you to do your job better in a way to bring down these terrorist organizations and the financial wherewithal? >> rather than respond off the top of our head, why don't we take that for the record? and give that some thought. >> thank you, sir.

10-q mr. guerre. >> gentlelady yield's back. mr. turner is recognized for five minutes. >> -- thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you all for being here and thank you for your diligence on an issue that is an incredibly important one. not only is it an issue as director clapper has said of us losing information but of the prospects that ultimately we could be looking at a change in the trend as admiral rogers was thinking manipulation of data or damaging data and effectiveness. by want to ask two questions that relate to coordination. general stewart, good to see again. last time we saw each other you in my district. thank you for being there. my concern on the first question on issue of coordination is with respect to isil, and following

on mr. swalwell's question from where the director who is trying to ensure where we have isil who is using social media to recruit individuals, that they find those individuals in the united states and hwart the opportunity or the plant expert with the dod their goal is to find these individuals and bring justice to them so we neutralize the threat as they continue to operate. isilsaid use of personnel, trying to target military personnel and also facilities for social media is a concern for of course across the country actively own community, even public events have been canceled. but when he goes to bringing justice to the individual that is not into united states, director of the if that does not involve, dod is, queer nation is an issue. general computer speak about the issue of the concern about the ability to bring justice to them and what our progress might be

there. the second issue is with respect to the office of personnel management. i came back to the national center, i thousands of individuals in mike energy at wright-patterson air force base were very concerned about the data breach, specifically with the sf-86 submission and information contained. director clapper, you mentioned that our personal affects both on damaging on financial information from actions that can be taken to them individually. it also includes their families but you've got the next layer of than what happens with our national effectiveness as that information is compromised. if you could speak for a moment on the issue of coordination after all depend on opm to protect information of the people about your agencies to be effective and to function. general? >> congressman, the dia enterprise expands not just here in washington put down to

combatant commands, to the survey intelligence centers and after they forces that are on the ground in respect of a awarded we coordinated daily on activities that we see across the entire spectrum of the enterprise. we are in contact with the services come in contact with a combatant commands come in contact with her and was hit at original intel centers to make sure we get the best characterization of the threat, as characterization of what they're capable of and more important if we can target them come had to give targeting data down to those forces that can, and a kinetic way, in a combat way, or injustice to these forces come into her adversary. so i feel comfortable we are talking. so not only are we talking to those units below us, but we're also talking latterly. none of what i can do at dia can be done without the efforts of nsa or the things that are being done at cia. so we bring all sources of information together, package

that to all our concealers from the national level all the way down to her forces on the ground, and then we hopefully can bring to targetable information that will strike those actors in a very kinetic way. >> director clapper come on the issue of also personal risk. it includes a professional risk, the danger of this information being out. if you could speak to that for a moment. >> well, that's quite right. there is potentially, and i emphasize the word potentially, great risk certainly in the case of intelligence people, particularly those assigned overseas, and in certain covered categories, that's a great concern of ours. what we have done through the auspices of national counterintelligence security center is to get as much education as we possibly can on

what the potential implications are both, as i said institutionally and individually. but at this point we haven't seen, as we discussed before, actual evidence of the use of any of this data in a nefarious way. i want to ask director comey to comment as well. >> i agree with director clapper's characterization. i've worke board with the workfe been a little confusing that, i've talked about workforce, that we got everybody credit monitoring. that's actually not my worry about this information. i feel like tha that is why peoe flood insurance when their neighbor had just burned down. it's not people's credit cards and credit rating given what we think information was taken for. we see no indication of it being used to anybody's credit account. i don't think that's to consider at the same time i don't want to put people at ease because it's significant counterintelligence

threat associate with someone having this information, a nation-state. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here with us today. we talk a lot about china, russia, north korea, iran, nonstate actors. with concern of attacks and nesting and the dark web, et cetera. how much of what we are seeing is taking place from within the united states? unhappy bad actors within the united states that are participating in attacks and nesting and on the dark web? >> we have our fair share of criminals, and criminals increasingly operate online because that's what our lives are. that's where children play. that's where we've been. that's where our health care is to the people want to hurt kids, that's what you're up early and often sharing images with each other on the dark web hoping that we would not have defined

them that they would use the onion router tried to commit occasions. as part of child exploitation we see fraudsters of all kinds, whether it's health care just trying to steal your banking transactions trying to operate in a way that we can't see. they think if they go to the dark web, the hidden layers that they can hide from us. ..

get the actors apprehended and so we have to hope to grab them when they leave the country and travel, the good news all the successful cyber criminals have lots of dough and want to go on vacation. that is where our with your partners we grab them up. >> is there potential for geneva convention type of arrangement to be made? i consider the cyber world to be a world war taking place each and every day. is there potential for set of international rules, even amongst some of the people we consider to be our adversaries? >> i, yes. there is potential for it. one would hope. took many, many years for geneva

conventions to evolve. i suspect it will be in these cases as well. i think the hope is there could be established some international norms, governing behavior, particularly what civilized nation states will do about criminal behavior and use the internet for terrorism purposes. many, many countries that have an interest in that. >> how do you suggest we begin that process? >> well, certainly the, the public discourse, think i, is useful. it is certainly a topic within intelligence circles that we discuss with our friends and allies. particularly the five is. so there is growing body of interest in this but again i harken back to, we're from the intelligence realm. this really is a policy issue

over our labor grid. >> that really answers my question and what i was asking. has north korea conducted cyber attacks on u.s. companies since sony? >> your question is did they? >> have they conducted that any that we're aware of? >> since sony, not that i'm aware of. mike? >> we haven't seen any offensive destructive actions directed against the u.s. by the north koreans since the sony incident. >> any conjecture, is there anything, you don't have to go into detail, but did america act in any way maybe has been deterrent for them to act again? >> i certainly hope that's the case. the president came out very publicly, talked acknowledged the act, attributed to the act and talked about what we would do to in response to it. were we to see continued activity along those lines we'll

take additional action, potentially time and place of our choosing hopefully that has been effected. i would argue that your question is narrowly focused against attacks on united states. i have watched them do offensive action against other nations in the post-sony environment. >> thank you, my time expired. i yield back. >> gentleman yields backs. gentleman from utah, mr. stewart is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and gentlemen for what you do. is anyone saves nation from future chaos, you and your agencies working together. i have great respect for all of you. i consider you friends. mr. brennan i spent time with your guys last six months and they're heroes. mr. brennan, i think for the people in utah. i thank you for your sport. i have a question, but before i do, director clapper you said some things i don't understand. i hope you can clarify for me,

if you could. coming back to the opm breach. you said it us not an attack. i would ask to you clarify that. if i could elaborate just quickly. i understand there may be a technical definition but there is a couple of things that troubled me. one that we say we have no evidence of nefarious activity because of that. we don't know that. if someone is being blackmailed because of this information that has been taken we wouldn't know that yet. if someone's cover had been revealed because of this information, available we don't know that yet. we really don't know what the effect of being taken. can you define what is an attack, what isn't, doesn't meet that definition? this seems to me that it would be. >> our working definition whether it's an attack or not, is, in my characterization of it not being an attack, in that there was no destruction, or, data or manipulation of data. it was simply stolen. >> yeah. >> so that is, that is a passive intelligence collection activity, just as we do.

>> well, seems to me, sir -- >> to the other, to your other question is, we don't know what could be going on. that is quite true. all i'm saying there has been no evidence surfaced to this point of the use of this data in a nefarious way, either against individuals or institutionally. that is not to say we're not mindful of that and we're not watching for it. >> i'm sure that you are. i do think it seems to minimize the gravity of this event by characterizing it, not an attack and that saying that this point we're not aware of any nefarious activity when there very well could be. many view this simply more than data mining. if i could go on to my question, i need to set this up very quickly and i would appreciate your response. national security is a matter of cost benefit analysis. you have nation states that say here are our ambitions. here are our interests, our

goals and other hand they have to measure the cost of reaches those goals or defending those interests. what are the risks or what are the obstacles they may overcome doing that. seems to me we haven't weighted scales on side of our adversaries making them know and understand the risks and costs and, i think the effect of that is, we weaken idea of deterrents or at least maybe i don't understand the idea of deterrents. and, it seems to me when we see these attacks as we have in the recent past, some of them associated with nation states. but they seem to act with impunity. and, can you help me understand, what is their, what is our policy regarding deterrents? and i know that there is some in regards to that you wouldn't want to talk about, but seems to me if we can be more open how we will respond that could act as more of a deterrence, and i'm not sure we've done very good job of doing that yet. >> personally, this is not, a

company policy. this is my own view. that until such time as we do achieve or create both the substance and the mind set of deterrents, that this sort of thing is going to continue. the opm breach, and as, admiral rogers has stated on more than one occasion, this is not a one-off. we will continue to see this, until we create both substance and psychology of deterrents. >> well, i couldn't agree with you more. i have editorialized about this number of times. just seems we enhance our security if we can deter, rather than just monitor and take action after the effect. i know there is a fine line you have to tread. you don't want to reveal capabilities. don't want to reveal how we track and some cases how we may deter or we may do rhett trippings but -- retribution, i hope you agree with me,

director, seems like you are, if we can be more open and more clear about our deterrents policy, that would benefit us. >> those are policy issues and certainly as an intel guy i would be advocate for that but ultimately that is a policy call. >> i understand that in five seconds anyone else on the panel like to address the deterrents? the okay. thank you, mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. mr. carson is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think we all understand that we face serious threats as it relates to hacking and in the cypberspace but we also are dealing with, a larger cve strategy and the distribution of propaganda and radicalization of americans, really using online platforms. so i think it is obvious that we have some great challenging

concerns about the constitutionality of protected free speech. my first question would be, how effective are these online radicalization efforts domestically? are there particular subsets of society most greatly influenced? secondly outside of encouraging voluntary compliance by google, facebook, twitter and others what authorities do you guys have to forcely remove propaganda and other recruiting materials and what authorities could congress empower you with to help in those efforts. >> i think i can respond to that, mr. carson. first of all, they are, as we've seen over the last six to nine months, recruitment efforts using social media are highly effective. isil started investing 12 to 15 months ago. the fruit of that was seen with all the people we had to arrest to stop plots late this spring and this summer, because social

media works whether selling sneakers or selling poise son of so-called islamic state. so it works. in my experience social media companies have been responsible and responsive in trying to take down media that offensive related to a terrorist groups. the challenge it is most complicated spider web in the world. you have a hard time finding it. when you find it and shut it down, chases to some other place. it is enormous problem. i don't have a simple answer to it. i want to say they have been responsive and responsible in my experience. people who respond to it are troubled mind. people seeking meaning in their lives and folks seek meaning in all different kinds of ways. unfortunately there is audience for this kind of poison. they find meeting of ultimate battle through end of times in the islamic state. that is craziness but troubled souls. we see people with problems with alcohol or problems with their

families or problems with the law and seeking orientation in their life are responsive to this kind of stuff. the fbi's piece in that is trying to do two things at once. first send a strong message of deterrents. this is not a way to find meaning in your life. this is a way to find years, maybe decades in federal prison. that ought to factor in people's consideration. to equip police officers and communities and parents with markers of radicalization. we've gone back through every case we ever seen, develop ad matrix these are things that are indicators of that journey. we're trying to equip people with that as they see it to orient that person. >> has the citizens academy active seeking awareness or community engagement with a larger cbe strategy. >>? citizens academy is part of fbi field office we invite community leaders to come in to learn about the work we do, go out into the community, armed with

understanding of challenges we face. they're a key part of that. nobody wants to see these people turn to the dark side in that way. so our goal, we have to be careful, we care deeply as everybody in this room does about the first amendment. we don't want the fbi in business of telling people, this is the true meaning of islam. we're not qualified and we should be nowhere near that. we want to equip the good people of the united states to the understanding of markers of radicalization so they can have those conversation. >> that is important work and we appreciate the work the bureau does and rest of the agencies represented here. i do want to say, director, respectfully, i think you know this, i don't have to say it, when we talk about radicalization islam does not have monopoly on radicalization or even cult-like activities. there are so-called christian groups purporting racial methodologies destructive in the midwest. when i worked at fusion center, a lot of calls we to the about

white supremacists groups claiming to represent christianity and judaism and other groups. in our larger effort we can perhaps educate the public islam does not have monopoly on radicalization but we appreciate what you guys do. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. mr. pompeo is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. portion of the patriot act expire next year is that right? tell me what efforts the intelligence community has put in place. we struggle mightily with section 215 and others to get them put in a place that is meaningful and helpful to help you form your functions. tell me what effort you all are engaged in, contemplating what happens if the provision do expire or not renewed and what efforts you engaged in you or the administration are engaged in insuring those provisions don't come off the books.

>> i guess the best response would be to take that one to, is to what the work-arounds might be if it, if it totally expires. i guess, you know, the hope is that they won't, we'll have to figure out work around. i'm not, i guess i don't prepared here to respond directly to questions. we'll get that for you. >> i just raise that it seems like a long ways away. middle of next year will be here awfully quickly. we had enormous struggles legislatively to get things accomplished. i want all members of this committee and all of you to know there are bunch of us determined to make sure the provisions are continued if we need to modify them some way update them to be consistent with what we're trying to do today but we should not wait until may to think about what what the impacts are.

>> you're quite right, sir. appreciate you bringing that up. i like to give you serious response and we'll get back to you. >> this is for anyone but i will start with director clapper. we are negotiations complete iran and nuclear review act that congress is reviewing today. what is the iranian behavior in the cyber world? is there any noticeable changes either as negotiations continued came to fruition and or where we sit today. >> mike. why don't you. >> we publicly acknowledge if you step back a little bit in the 2012-2013 time frame we were seeing significant iranian activity directed bense u.s. financial sector trying to take down financial websites. flowing out of '13 as the negotiations kicked in in many ways, we saw less activity directed directly against us. but i would remind people, i have not sign the iranians step back from their commitment to cyber as a tool.

we see it being used pens variety of actors in the gulf and in the region. they continue to be fully committed how can they use this capability to achieve a broader set of national objectives. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back my time. >> chairman yields back. the gentleman from connecticut, mr. himes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and for all of your commitment of time to us this morning. i want to refer to a theme i was promoting in my opening statement. ask a couple of questions relating to clarity around international norms within the cyber realm. first question, i guess directed at mr. clapper, there is, some debate as to whether currently existing international treaties and international law, laws of war, are perhaps sufficient to provide the clarity that you need operationally. i have understand there is a policy question here. i'm asking a operational question which is, do you think that that is true or do you see the cyber realm as distinct

enough from the territorial or other realms such that would be operationally helpful to have specific clarity around laws and norms within the cyber realm. >> i will offer an opinion and that's all. because it is as you say a policy issue. there needs to be norms specifically tailored to the cyber domain. to me at least somewhatnal fast to chemical warfare conventions, that it has some technical aspects that i think need, for them to be meaningful and effective. need to be adapted. perhaps drawing on principles of what we now know is international norms in earth realms. there needs to be tailoring.

mike? >> i would echo that. there are mechanisms out there and frameworks we can draw on. there is certainly some differences within the cyber and first to acknowledge that i think important point you raised is, clearly we still do not have enough clarity. and clarity, particularly if i put on my operational role as cyber command, clarity is everything to me. that helps enable to speed response, to help generate better outcomes. so i think it is important for us as a nation. i would argue more broadly internationally, to come to a sense of sense of what are these terms? what are these definitions? what is framework that enables us to quickly decide what is acceptable, unacceptable. what is acceptable response? currently environment we're all in, i don't think anyone is satisfied to with the environment we find ourselves in right now. >> thank you. last question is i guess, where are we? is this an effort to which your respective organizations are

actually contributing significant resource, prioritizing? obviously groups are not represented here, like state department that would be pretty critical. is this something you perceive broadly within the u.s. government as priority? >> well, it's, clearly a matter of discussion in the inneragency and i think you're quite right. the state department probably the better institution to then intelligence. >> any other observations, comments? okay. admiral? >> i would just say, i mean clearly the ic participants in those discussions. and we get the opportunity to provide a viewpoint of perspective. we try to back that up based on insights and data we generate which is what expectation for us as intelligence professionals. clearly we're all frustrated this is taking us all longer than we would like.

i would not want anyone to believe not because of a lack of effort. not because of a lack of recognition that this is an issue, set of issues at that fundamentally need to be addressed. >> thank you. chairman, i yield back balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back. i want to thank the panel today. thank you for being here. thank you for being the willing to testify in public. we will have questions that we'll submit for the record. i think, director clapper. there is a couple questions that may have to be answered in classified setting but we look forward to receiving those. i would like to remind members they have 10 legislative days to submit questions for the record. before we adjourn. like to quickly recognize lynn westmoreland. >> thank you, chairman. i want to thank director clapper and director brennan and admiral roger for your participation in georgia regents university, the cyber symposium they're putting on in augusta, georgia as you

know. nsa facility is there and expanding. i know director clapper and director brennan have both stated as well as admiral rogers about the need for young talent get involved in this field. i want to thank the director sending miss o'sullivan down this year to speak. we were hoping to get you but we were glad to have miss o'sullivan. >> you're getting better speaker. >> and sending mr. roche. and thank you for your sport and reallying what we're doing is trying to get young talent to recognize importance of our cybersecurity. so thank you very much. >> thank you. >> well, once again, thank you, gentlemen. hearing is now adjourned. >> the center of environment and public works committee hold as hearing today on the recent gold

king mine spill which released three million gallons of wastewater into the animus river in colorado. epa director gina mccarthy is expected to testify. watch live on 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3 and c-span.org. >> our road to the white house interview with republican presidential candidate george pataki. the former governor of new york launched his presidential bid in may. this is 40 minutes. >> joining us from new york is former governor george pataki, 2016 republican presidential candidate. governor, thanks very much for being with us. >> good being on with you, steve. >> when you first entered this race, you said that you could win if voters pay attention to you. are they? >> well, i think right now there is one major distraction that is really focusing most of the media attention but it is still

early in the process. i think the honest answer is not yet, but i believe there is still a very good chance that they will. >> so how do you get there? what is your method? what is your path to the nomination? >> you know i think people are going to want government that works. they are going to want a leader who has a proven record of being able to bring people together and actually solve problems, make changes, who has a vision as how you need to do that and can do that in washington and that's me. . .

we continually elect pro-life republicans but nothing changes. let me tell you what would change if i was president of this country. would have a permanent ban on funding using taxpayer dollars for abortion. that should happen. we would defund planned parenthood. i think it's just outrageous that they showed such a despicable disregard for life in the marketing and selling of the organs of a baby. that is just reprehensible. the third thing i would do is, i don't believe i have the right to impose a religious beliefs come which is that life begins at conception of those who don't share that belief. we have separation of church and state in this country but there comes a point where it's not my

religious belief. it's science and that is the 20 weeks where science says yes, this is a viable life that can be sustained outside the womb. an education of a baby whose life should be protected. what the politics of this or i can tell you what the philosophy is is very simple. politicians should not be given the power to dictate our lives but when science is it is alive, we have an obligation to protected. >> host: if a president to talk to her to appoint a supreme court justice, would this be a litmus test issue? >> guest: no litmus test but i do believe the constitution clearly lays out the fact that lars must both be enacted by elected representatives of the people and not imposed by and elected justices, justice of the importance of what they think would be a good policy. i would have a supreme court justices who believe in the constitution, understand the rule is to interpret the law and not make the law. >> host: you passed on this four years ago but entered

earlier this year. what's different today? >> guest: i think the need for change is that much greater. america's stature in the world has declined dramatically for the last four years. our national security is at risk in a way that i haven't seen since september 11, whether to radical islam or an emerging china or a russian that is very aggressive to say the least in europe and central europe. something our national security situation is worse, and are economic condition is for a fragile. we saw the vibrations in the stock market. the concern that people have. we are not having a job growth, not having to economic recovery. we don't have a sense of optimism in america's economy going forward that we shouldn't do it all comes down to one thing, and that is the feeling of leadership in washington, whether it's the economy or national security america's standing in the world. with the right leadership we can turn it around.

>> host: let's talk much on the political group or how did a lawyer become the mayor of that city outside of new york city? >> guest: i went off, got a great education, started on wall street with a big law firm. it just wasn't for me. i wanted to go home. i moved back to our family farm. i practiced a little all ayn rand the form with my family. and then decided that if you like the committee and if you don't believe in the leadership you have to option. you can either sit on your site and complain which is a very effective or get involved and try to change. so i ran into the very democratic city against the democratic incumbent your that's been largely the story of my political life tha the people believed in me and gave me the chance to lead that city. itablet i left into better condition than when i took office. >> host: how did you win that

race? >> guest: hard work, door-to-door, not being a partisan. in that city democrats were first come independence were second and republicans were third in enrollment. i knew i had to just forget about partisan politics and have ideas that appeal to people based on the strength of those ideas. that was a great lesson for me that i've kept my entire life. it's not simply partisan politics. it ideas and a vision that appeal across party lines. that was a great lesson for me and my first raise money from my hometown and it's been a lesson i think america could use more of in washington where people shouldn't have this blind partisan loyalty. we should have his partisan divide. once the elections are over we are all americans. if we are going to solve our problems are to reach out across party lines and govern based on solutions and not partisanship of the that me ask you about the farm which is to operate, "new york times" writing about your appearance on saturday morning's

at the farmer's market in new york's west village. safe to say you are the only presidential candidate that operates the farmer's market, at least sells beef at a farmers market. >> guest: i think that's pretty likely. it's just something that's been in my blood sense of the little kid. my grandfather made his living going to have a horse and wagon selling vegetables we drew on the foreign. now we have a farm way upstate new york where we raise grass fed beef cattle and marketed, including the new york city. it's just something that i've always loved. you are connected to the land. it's something where it's tangible, not pushing papers are making money with a stock deal on wall street. you actually grow something, take it, harvested, summit to a consumer who enjoys a. i hope to be doing that the whole way through my life. >> host: what makes you would be different? >> guest: now you want me to be a marketer works well, it is

grass fed, hormone-free, antibiotics free, grass finish. it's really good and it's healthy for you. that is something that's different. in fact, we have a young guy who moves the cattle every day or two on a horse from one area to another. it's really kind of neat. farthing teaches you the valley of hard work. you can't skip a day. it doesn't matter if you don't feel good or if it's cold out. you still have to get the job done. it teaches you never to cut corners because it will come back to bite you. you can't cover it up i blame someone else. it teaches you that words don't matter, that you have to get the job done. it doesn't matter if you claim you did something, you have either done it or not. it also teaches you to persevere. mother nature can be pretty wild out of there. sometimes you will think you have things ready to go and a storm will come along and you just have to pick yourself up and do it again.

i think it's a great lifestyle, a great life lesson about the valley of hard work and sticking to it regardless of the ups and downs. >> host: you were mayor of peekskill in the early '80s. then he ran for the state house why? >> guest: i always ra rent or democratic incumbent, for the mayor, assembly, for governor. when i was mayor i thought i did a very good job in getting the city had in the right direction. it was always so frustrating so much of the control of what you could do with some government at a higher level. in this case the state level. i wanted to change that and i ran and got involved. in the assembly and was overwhelmingly democratic. so it was hard to get my ideas through, although i worked well with the majority and did get some things done. the republicans controlled the senate. every republican he wanted in the state legislature, and ascended because that's we could be in the majority.

i got there and within a month i hated it because they were more concerned about getting reelected, about taking care of the constituents that help them get reelected than about changing the state. we had a liberal failed state government at the time. instead of standing up and try to change it, they accommodated so they could get reelected. within literally a month or two of getting elected i said this isn't for me. i will either be in a position where i can we change the state or get out of politics and do something else. >> host: let me ask about the issue of corruption because there's been a number of lawmakers in new york have been convicted of influence, paddling and taking bribes. why has it been so prevalent in albany over the years transferred it's just awful what has happened. we see legislator after legislator indicted in too many convicted. part of it is that separation of powers prevents the executive except under rig site that is --

circumstances to go after the legislature. we put in place a number ethics reforms. we commissioned -- we created a commission to recommend a series of reforms to change how executive agencies and authorities functioned. we implemented them all but the legislation would exempt itself. it was alternately the legislature with a vast majority of this corruption has come from. finally, we have prosecutors and press going after a. i think it's a good thing that they're going after a. i think it's tragic it's occurred. one of the problems that i see is that legislators stat stay te 10, 20, 30, 40 years. they begin to think the laws don't apply to the it's not just in albany. it's in washington, too. congress passes obamacare, imposes on every single american but exempts themselves and their staff. that's what happens to legislators start to the rules don't apply to them. they do apply to the big one of

the things i want to change in washington is every single law that applies to the american people will apply to congress. that's the way it should be invested legislatures and sadly it wasn't that what. >> host: in early 94 state senator george pataki announces he's going to run for governor, challenging governor cuomo. what did you see in the race that others did not that led to your election? >> guest: nobody thought i had a chance. i was in peekskill, never raising money. i was an outcast because i post my own parties accommodation of mario cuomo and his very liberal policy. i knew that people wanted to change the direction of the state. understood that new york's government was failing its people. we were dead last in jobs, had the highest taxes, the worst credit rating. we had one in 11 of every man, woman and child in the state on welfare. not medicaid or disability. welfare. this was failing and we were the most dangerous state.

i need if i could get my message out that it was a government that was failing to people, not the people that were failing, i could have a chance. that's why by the way i'm running for president. because i have the same sense that the people understand that our government is failing us in washington, and they don't like the partisan imposition of an ideology by either side. they want solutions that are going to work to make this country better. i did in new york end of my democratic state. i know i can do in washington hosted in that race mayor giuliani endorsed governor cuomo, not you. what was your reaction? >> guest: it was a shock to me and it hurt because he was well done. it just got elected mayor of new york and i was an unknown. people said he was a republican who doesn't like george pataki. he's too conservative for the state. soldier but on the other hand, i was talking early winter coat on a farm you can get the best crop

and hurricane comes along and you pick yourself up and go forward anyway. that's what we did. we picked ourselves up and said look, that's what he thinks, but here's what i complete the state and change things. ultimately, i made the case, thought the fight and win. that's what i hope to do. i was way behind in the polls against mario cuomo in a democratidemocratic state. i understand i am way behind in the polls in the republican side now but there are a lot of serious issues facing this country. i know i have the ability to resolve those issues, working as a conservative republican but with the democrats as well. i hope that people as the election gets closer takes a look inside pataki is the right guy aspect in that race the last week and have come last two weeks they began to turn in your favor. what happened transfer in just hard work ? >> guest: hard work. making the case rudy giuliani

have endorsed mayor cuomo but that didn't change the fact that this state, cover within the people, he didn't have the job we want if we were the most dangerous state, dead last in jobs. i had a positive agenda to change the tax laws, change the criminal justice long, to replace welfare with opportunity. and people said yes. we don't know this guy but his ideas make sense, let's give them a chance. i'm grateful they did and i think the state should be grateful it did because we did managed to change the state completely. >> host: what was the conversation like between you and mayor giuliani? >> guest: it was fine. i've always looked forward and i've always thought that if you look back and say well, this person did that come that person to the other think of your never going to be able to get things done. it's about tomorrow, about the future at about governing successfully. he was a very successful mayor in new york. we work as well together i think as governor and mayor have

worked together in a long time. today in new york the of the mayor and the governor that never speak to each other and generally not in civil terms. we were able because we had a common agenda and looked forward to put it behind us. that's what you did in washington as well. you can't say this person was without are this person didn't support me. it's not about your ego. it's about the people at about solutions to the challenges facing our country. i've always been able to look at the future instead of what people may or said in the past. >> host: with regard to governor cuomo, he passed away earlier this year. did it surprise you that he never ran for president? that was one of the questions asked during his eulogies and the obituary of governor cuomo. >> guest: it didn't surprise that he was a great liberal icon of the democratic party and i think had he run they would've had a great deal of support.

but it's a very personal decision and i respect the fact that governor cuomo me that personal decision not to run. i also respect the fact that after i had beaten him he was extreme gracious. in his treatment of me, never saying i told you so or look what he is doing or anything. you can have those philosophical disagreements. you can run against each other ultimately but ultimately we are all americans. i think too often people in politics forget that. you have to understand we may have different visions, different ideas as to what the solutions are but so long as we work together to try to get to a common feature, we can put aside those differences and find a common ground you need as americans to go forward successfully. >> host: you proud to serve two terms. you served three. why? >> guest: out to you. we made enormous progress. we took new york from being the most dangerous state in america to the fourth safest state in america. we got over 1 million people,

got them off the welfare rolls and have them onto the employment rolls, turned around new york's economic climate. then we had the horrible attacks of september 11, 2001. that pretty much instantaneously through of everything that we've been trying to do the it was a horrible, horrible human loss, which i will never forget but it was also an economic catastrophe for new york because we lost 60 million square feet of office space. think about that. think about that come in one part of we lost 100,000 jobs in an hour. we end up losing over 300,000 jobs. people didn't want to come to new york. the word was enacted decentralized and word was enacted decentralize educative all this business is concentrated one small geographic area. new york was facing another crisis. you don't walk away from a crisis. you leave through a crisis and i'm proud to go to for that happened today, it's one of the most exciting places in america to be. the memorial is one of the most

moving places anyone can visit in north america. we now have commerce rising, the freedom tower, 1776 feet tall. we have a crisis you don't walk away, you lead through it and make sure you leave a space for the people of the country care about better off than when you started. >> host: on that tuesday morning, where were you at what point did you realize the magnitude of what was happening? >> guest: i was in the city that morning, and my daughter called and said dad, a plane just hit the tower, tournament to be. she was rattled. she was in the city and i was talking to her and said, welcome is probably a mistake. and i saw the second plane hit and i knew that it was a terrorist attack at a total had to get to work. we activated the state's emergency response system. i've talked to mayor giuliani. i called president bush and asked him to shut down the

airspace. he had already shut down the airspace over america. then we just went to work that day, and it was, you could never anticipate the. no one knew what might happen next. it was a horrible time but it was a time when you just had to put aside all the other concerns and do whatever you could to lead to the crisis. i'll tell you, that afternoon i spoke to mayor giuliani and the in out of pocket for like four or five hours because he had been trapped under a building when his command center was destroyed. he called and said i'm back, i'm okay, we have it temporary command center in about a minute i thought i said i'd bring my entire team down to me with yours. i think that's most important decision i ever made. from that afternoon on, 24 hours a day can anyone from every state officials working to get us through september 11, every city officials working to get us through september 11. when the feds came in a day or two later, they were in that room.

there was never any doubt as to who is going to carry out what mission. it was about organized, total synchronized response by all levels of government, plus the strength of the american people that will help us get through that time posting so much happened during those first four or five days after the attack. for you person what would you like, what was your schedule like, what was your routine like? >> guest: you didn't have a schedule and you didn't have a routine. we would be meeting with the city officials and federal officials. and then it would very. depending on the needs of the moment. one moment would be meet with common members to try to console them. one minute would be meeting with firefighters and construction workers to urge them to which they didn't need much urging. they were so patriotic and strong in their understanding of the crisis we are facing. at the same time give to govern in an emergency. estate runs the arab port.

estate runs the subway. we did everything to ramp up security because we didn't know what could happen next. it was just constant, constant effort to get us through this. by the way as i mentioned earlier the economic crisis was enormous. the morning of the mexican of tn september 12, we have a 24 hour economic assistance program going in the lobby of the office building of the office was, or everyone from the corner dry cleaner to american express could come in and get assistance, prevent them from suffering more economic disaster. it was a night and day job i would be giuliani and his team iin the city, buy myself myselfn arching of the state, and by the federal officials who were here. i'll tell you one thing i will never forget is the american people, the outpouring of support we have from every corner of america. we have volunteers.

we had experts. we had support. we actually to set up a command center, a major center to coordinate all the support we're getting from around the country to make sure we controlled who was going down to ground zero to help with the recovery and with the relief efforts. i'll never forget the spirit of the american people, never forget the strength of new yorkers that the. one of most important things i will never forget is the sense of unity that we felt. everything is seen through superficially divide us, republicans, democrats, young, old, black, white, it didn't matter. we are all americans. we are going to stand together shoulder to shoulder and the strength of america showed in those days and weeks and hope we can show the strength again host the are you concerned we could face another 9/11 type attack on the homeland? >> guest: just. no question. i think we are at as great danger today as ever.

two different types of attacks. first we saw what all sap in garland, texas, were american citizens would've been massacred but for a texas cop. we did to what happened in chattanooga for a ring recruited were murdered. as the fbi director said that are hundreds or thousands of americans who have been radicalized in the name of jihad to attack a fellow americans. we have got to stop this. it is not free speech to try to convince a fellow american to kill other americans in the name of jihad. you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. you can't urge an american to kill another american in the name of jihad. we've got to shut down that ability to try to radicalized americans to engage in violence. that's not enough. isis, they just used chemical weapons against kurds. they have weapons of mass destruction and sophisticated weaponry. hundreds of millions of dollars. they of thousands of people with western passports.

and if we think isis doesn't pose a threat to us in america today, we are dead wrong. i'm not for a 10 year war or national or trillion dollars the nature to try to create a democracy where none has existed budget blueprint to do everything to destroy the recruiting centers, training hubs, planning centers before they attack us. >> host: what is george pataki's approach to foreign policy? >> guest: first of all we have to allies and respect is we have to rebuild our military. when you make a commitment like there's a line in the sand where assad cannot use chemical weapons and we are going to find them when we don't keep our word, that our stature in the globe is diminished. i would be far more aggressive in confronting radical islam but it's not going to go away because we pretend it doesn't exist. it's not just isis and al-qaeda. it's also iran where $150 billion in economic relief

would begin supporting terrorist activities against america, against our allies. not just in the least but around the world. that is wrong. i'm not in favor of nation building worst i have two sons, oldest son when he got to college became a marine lieutenant, served for a year in direct my younger son became a lieutenant in the 10th mountain division and got back from afghanistan last september i know what it's like for it. for a parent to light the wiccan the middle of the night worrying about a phone call ukraine ever comes to i do not want want american parent or loved one to worry about getting that call because a loved one is in harm's way unless it's absolutely necessary. if we pretend that radical islam is not a threat to us in america because it's an ocean away, we are making the same mistake we made before september 11. only this time i believe the risk is greater. >> host: how many children do you have any grandchildren?

>> guest: i have four kids, two daughters, two sons, i have four grandchildren so for and another one we are going to in october. one of the things i've always believed is that one generations obligation to lead a better life for the next generation. it's not just for your family, for your country and for society. you look at the future now and america has always been a building that better future. we see a government that i believe is stealing from future generations to buy those to live beyond our means to be. if my grandchildren to have a better life than i do. we've got to regain that confidence in the future. it's not a failing of the american people. we should look at the 21st century is the most exciting optimistic time ever in history of our country. we are going to cure cancer, and alzheimer's, have the energy from sources that we can only dream of the day.

we will have trains that go faster than plants. we should believe in the future. if we get our government right, the american people will. >> host: how did you meet your wife and what was her reaction when you told her you were running for president? >> guest: i met are actually on the beach on long island but i was always kind of a crazy athlete playing basketball and running and i loved riding waves in the surf in the ocean off long island. there was this one day where there is a massive surf as there is a hurricane come off north carolina and you were not supposed to go in the water but i did. this other crazy woman was a better writing to same ways. we crashed into each other and that the she's kind of as great as i am. turned out, so that's how we met. she knew from we only meant that i had this desire to change the world, but it was my hometown or the united states. i don't think she was surprised by the decision and she does support post a you took your

time off because of your son-in-law who suffered a stroke. what happened and how is he doing today? >> guest: i'll tell you, it's just heartbreaking. my daughter's husband dave, doctor, 30 years old, as we can work out every day in tremendous shape, just finished his third year of orthopedic residency. out of the blue as a stroke, life-threatening, very serious stroke. a lot of people are praying and asking and we're grateful for that, and thank you for the question. he has made enormous strides physically. he's doing fine. mentally he has made tremendous strides. that doctors are hopeful they can have a 100% recovery and actually become the orthopedic surgeon that he was so close to being before the stroke. you never know what they stroke that its day-to-day but the improvement continues. he's doing much better. as i said we had people praying from the vatican ii the western wall in jerusalem. the prayers have helped and we're very hopeful they will

have a full recovery of the are you a religious person? >> guest: i'm a quiet man of faith. i'm a great, yes, the answer is i don't like to talk about my religion. my favorite quote is from st. augustine, and he was preaching and he goes, pray constantly and always spread the faith, if necessary use words. and i just love that quote because you don't have to be, where it on your sleeve, you don't have to be trying to impose religion on others. i am a christian of quiet faith who believes in that faith and others to live a life consistent with that faith. and by doing that, in spite of others to live the good life but i'm not, i guess that explains at. >> host: we are a nation of immigrants and your town has an immigration store as well. when did your parents and grandparents come here, and from where traffic all four of my grandparents were immigrants.

they all came through ellis island. three of the four could speak a word of english. my grandmother from ireland spoke english but should such a thick accent that was tough to understand. they came in because they loved the idea of freedom. they didn't have anything in the county. my father was born in ethnic community in peekskill for anybody spoke the same language, hungarian. when he went off to the first great he didn't speak the word of english. he only spoke hungarian because the entire neighborhood working is when factory. so my four grandparents were immigrants. they worked in factories. it's one of the reasons i believe, one of the key changes i would make is to lower the tax on manufacturing in america to the lowest in the developed world. right now it's the highest i want to make things in america again. it's great for our country, great for our economy. it's great for people who maybe

don't have a college degree but it's a middle-class job that pays well. while i was in college i worked in the same factory my grandparents worked in over christmas and summer vacation, and i was always happy to get the paycheck. they were tough jobs but they were good jobs for you made something. sadly we don't have enough of those. >> host: where did you go to college? >> guest: i got a scholarship from peekskill ho high-end wento yale. i had no idea what is going to go. mike parents didn't go to college. my mother had a scholarship to cornell but she was the only come during the depression issues the only one working as a waitress. she was supporting her whole family saw her mom just said sorry, you can't go to college. my parents didn't go to college. i had a chance. my older brother went to yale, got an academic scholarship and i was going to go to notre dame, a catholic kid who still have never gone to college, you go to

notre dame. it was a great experience post to let me conclude with a couple of political questions. you have seen donald trump from a different perspective as the governor of new york what do you think of him? >> guest: i've never had a problem with him personally addeandthey don't have a probleh him running for president. but i do have a problem when you demonize an entire class of immigrants come in this case, mexicans, who he called rapists or thugs. the vast majority, even those who came here illegally counted because they want to work and have the opportunity to build a better life for the family. when you do that to me it's just that registered the idea we're going to take a 10 year old girl born in america, never spent a day in any place but the united states of america, fluent in english doing well in school and have the police or the army came in and drag her out of the classroom and senator country

she's never been in her life is just to me incomprehensible. i've never had a problem with them as a person but the idea is expressed during this campaign whether it's on immigrants or whether it's on pows honor veterans of the best this country produces artistic the outrageous and not up to someone who should be considered seriously to be president husband has his entry help or hurt the republican party? >> guest: i don't know. i think at this point it's very early in the process. some of the candidates who have not stood up when he made these horrible comments about immigrants, particularly mexicans, are going to regret the fact they didn't reject them flat out at that time. ultimate i think candidates rise and fall based on their vision, their ability, the people speak of them whether they trust him and believe in their ability to lead. so hopefully as the race gets closer to actual decision time, people are going to take a look

and say pataki is a guy who can lead this country. he can bring us together and that's who i'm going to vote for. >> i road to the white house coverage of the presidential candidates continues saturday morning with the new hampshire democratic party convention live from manchester. saturday at 938 eastern on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. taking on the road to the white house. >> the senate is change its debate to the uncovering nuclear agreement. lawmakers will now consider legislation that would keep iran's sanctions in place until the country release of u.s. hostages and recognizes visual.

mitch mcconnell added that provision last but after failing a second to get enough votes to advance the resolution disapproving of the iranian nuclear agreement. and now live to the floor of the u.s. senate. lack will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. god of grace and love, you guard our lives with your peace. help us to not attempt to build a relationship with you on the basis of our merit and goodness. give our lawmakers the wisdom to make your grace, the foundation for their living.